Part Two: A Man Who Adores Mexico? (Joshua Salyers)

While yes, I stole this title from Sarah; her application of Patrick Mullen’s analysis of white folklorists studying African Americans expressed a reflexivity that any non-Mexican scholar of Mexico, male or female, must consider. Mullens illustrated how white folklorists, operating under the social and political influences of their eras, influenced “constructions of blackness as folkness” (7). The examples provided by these scholars and Mullen’s reflection on his own work stressed the need for understanding your (as the historian) relationship to your historical subjects. As I begin preliminary research for a dissertation project not yet completely formulated, Mullen’s book has incited a deeper awareness of who I am and from what contexts I study Mexican history. What practical possibilities for developing a reflexive approach exist for “outsiders” such as Sarah and myself?

My proposed research project has an even more distant subject from the social and political realities that have informed my historical view. My topic in its current incipient form explores the material culture of poverty during a time when the federal government sought to “Mexicanize” consumption and to create a modern consumer culture. What level of reflexivity would justify my responsible study of poverty in Tepoztlán, one likely village for my research? As Kelley discussed in some detail, these questions haunt the historian, who must deals with countless divisive barriers aside from just racial constructs. Put simply, finding that balance reflexivity while trying to hold on to our legitimate right to study groups to which we do not belong entails doing the best we can. All I can hope for is that my education allows me to develop a culturally flexible approach and a reflexive historical consciousness.